Unless their parents own the company, anyone in hiring has been on both sides. And within the past 10 years (at least), job seekers have had to pack their resumes with keywords in order to get through HR. Yes, people should ideally take the time to tailor their resume to the position to which they're applying, but it's a lot less effort (and usually pays off) to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks so you can get at least a phone interview.

Also, in the time it takes to customize a resume, the position might be closed, and nobody wants to spend hours mentally reviewing their past experience to highlight parallels with the position they're applying to, especially when there's no guarantee they'll even get to submit that resume, let alone that anyone important will look at it. There's risk involved. If there's a job I really want, I'll tailor my resume. If it's a job that would be lucky to have me.... not so much.

Also, (and I can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Java devs here) if a Java dev is applying, it's likely because they're willing to do the work, not because they don't understand the difference. Many devs avoid JS because they *do* understand it, not because they don't. "I'm willing to pay you a half-million dollars to stab yourself in the eye, but it says here you've never stabbed yourself in the eye before. What makes you think you can do this job?! Idiot!"

Also worth noting that Java and JS are not mutually exclusive, and many Java projects include JS these days, so unless JS is absent from their resume, being a Java dev is probably a point in favor. Plus you mentioned C#, which is basically "Microsoft Java."

Finally, it's ironic because any dev who's been working longer than, say, 5 years has experience in technologies, frameworks, or even just parts of an API a language that are obsolete today. Everyone has had to transition to new technologies and methods, even if they stay in the same role at the same company using the same tools. Being able to pivot isn't the exception; it's the rule.

Point being, a keyword mismatch is an HR-level problem. IMO, nobody doing hiring should toss a good resume just because the experience doesn't match the requirements.

In theory, I agree that a polished resume is a good sign, and I try to present myself well on paper... but as a counterpoint, my good friend of over 30 years never put his resume in anything but plaintext format, uses keyword salad at the end, and he's also one of the best devs I know, and has always had more work than he has time for. I would be interested to learn how well a polished resume correlates with workplace success though, because I might be wasting my time.

Fair point, but there are a lot of large and influential companies that don't pay any dividends, because they invest their profits directly into growth and development. For example Nvidia.... well, they seem to pay 0.03 % of the current stock price, so essentially zero. The only economically sensible reason to invest in them is speculation; if there's some "useful economic activity" involved, the only way you'll get a piece of it is by buying low and selling high.

Cryptocurrencies have the same utility as banks, and many banks have been working on their own blockchains for years, for example JP Morgan: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffintechmagazine.com%2Far...

The stock market comparison is really just a side effect of what cryptocurrencies are all about, which is transferring money in ways that traditional banks can't do -- pseudonymously and independent of governments or businesses. Store of value and speculation is one thing, but you can't send NVDA shares (or gold, or tulips) across the globe with this kind of speed and freedom. Cryptocurrencies have value because they provide this service, you don't really pay just for the store of value.

Inductive heating of gold nanoparticles is a thing in cancer research, e.g. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

So it's just like the regular stock market.

> First, this isn't a law, it's a clarification of an existing set of laws.

So... it's a law. A piece of legislation voted on by congress and signed by the president. That's what a law is.

> Second, it doesn't make any stipulation about what means of payments must be accepted on anything, let alone gas stations

It's literally about the implementation of digital payment methods, and interoperability with other systems. That's exactly the issue raised with "Imagine if every gas station required you to use their shitty payment app before the pump worked."

> Like this?

That's not an adapter, dumbass. That's a level 2 EVSE.

> Chademo was the only existing one at the time

IEC 62196 connectors for DCFC were in use years and had several revisions before Chademo was created.

> NACS specifies both the physical form factor and the communication protocol.

It does not. You clearly have not read it. Tesla has since removed the files from their site but they've been reposted on the user forums. To quote the document: "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN 70121." That's it. That's all it says. you know what DIN 70121 is though? It's the same protocol developed for and implemented by CCS. Consequently, NACS is going to have all the same problems as CCS does unless and until someone takes the reins and enforces interoperability.

As for ISO 15118; that's more or less where all the problems are. The ISO and DIN standards overlap but are not compatible, so some DCFC stations speak one or both, some vehicles speak one or both, and there's no guarantee they'll be perfectly compatible because - again because I cannot stress this enough - there is nobody enforcing interoperability testing in the US. That's the very heart of the reliability problems.

> What the hell are you talking about? Tesla alone outnumbers all other cars on the road nearly 2:1 even to this day.

There are more non-Tesla charging locations in the US than Tesla ones. Tesla barely eeks out a lead if you count individual cables because they have some large installations, but Tesla Supercharger locations are out numbered over 3:1.

> I don't know why the hell Eurotards keep bringing Europe into this when that was never the context of the discussion

I'm American. I mention Europe because we are talking about standardization and reliability, and European laws have played a pivotal role in standardizing EV charging across the globe. The EU formally standardized and they have no reliability issues to speak of, the US let the private sector figure it out and it's a shitshow. It's extremely relevant to the discussion.
=Smidge=

Math and science geeks know this, and that's why we use proper formatting tools such as LaTeX, not a glorified Paint.

> ICE cars that aren't turned on generally don't just spontaneously combust

They absolutely do, though. In fact that's exactly what happens in the vast majority of vehicle fires that are not attributable to an accident (e.g. very recent and severe physical damage). You would probably be very alarmed at just how common and widespread safety recalls for vehicles are citing risk of fire.

On that note; https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finvestiga...

This is a case of a car carrier ship catching fire because an ICEV, having an outstanding safety recall for risk of spontaneous fires, spontaneously caught fire.
=Smidge=

> I don't think there are vaccinations against fat.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fdoi%2F10.10...

=Smidge=

> When was the last time a new ICE vehicle fire sunk a ship?

Certainly more than EVs have, because to date zero cargo ship fires have been definitively attributed to EVs.

The Grande Costa D'Avorio caught fire in 2023. That one was confirmed to have been started by an ICEV.

There was also the Hoegh Xiamen in 2020 which was carrying used ICEVs, which caught fire because the 12V battery in one of them was not properly disconnected.

In 2019, the a fire broke out on the Honor damaging the cargo before being put out by the crew. The cause was determined to be the starter motor solenoid on one of the crew's personal vehicles that was being transported.

In 2015, the Courage (same US-based owner as the Honor) ended up being scrapped after a fire destroyed $40M in new vehicles and cargo. The cause was determined to have been a faulty ABS module in one of the new cars on board. (Hint: not an EV...)

Then there was the Freemantle Highway, carrying 3000 vehicles, caught fire in the North Sea. Early reports and speculation blamed one of the ~480 EVs that were on board for the fire, but during investigations they discovered that all the EVs on board were intact. AFAIK the official cause of the fire remains undetermined but it definitely was NOT one of the EVs on board as everyone sensationally claimed at the time.

The cause of the fire and ultimate sinking of Felicity Ace in 2022, despite all the speculation and lawsuits from the insurance companies, has not been positively linked to any of the handful of EVs amid thousands of ICEVs on board.

So let's see,,, total ship fires confirmed to have been caused by ICEVs: at least 4. Total fires confirmed to have been caused by EVs: zero so far. Maybe y'all will finally get lucky with this one, eh? Get the lube and tissues ready 'cause I'm sure it'll be a massive anti-EV wankfest if it happens!
=Smidge=

They're not random; they're statistically weighted!

=Smidge=

> Which ones in particular?

One easy example.

> It wasn't a counter-proposal.

It was though. You attempted to replace the given bad analogy with an even worse one.

> No it's not, and it never was. In the earlier days

In the early days, nobody kept adapters in their cars because adapters didn't exist. Only a handful of Tesla chargers include their "Magic Dock" adapter which is only technically possible because, again, EU law forced Tesla to adopt CCS. You obviously have no practical knowledge of this situation so I'll say it explicitly: Prior to 2017, Tesla used their own proprietary DCFC protocol (derived from Chademo) and connector. Only Tesla vehicles can use V1 and V2 superchargers, and Tesla vehicles made 2017 or earlier can only use V1 and V2 superchargers unless they've had their charge controllers replaced. Tesla CCS adapters were physically impossible for nearly a decade because the vehicles and chargers spoke different languages.

After the EU forced everyone to start using CCS2 circa 2014, with full compliance due this year (2025), Tesla started building EU market vehicles with CCS2 ports and compatible hardware. To save money, Tesla then switched to using CCS hardware in all their vehicles and, a few years later, adapters started to become available.

If the US had put their foot down in a similar way, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Everyone would be using the same physical connector and the same protocol, and they would be legally required to work together instead of relying on the honor system like we have now so they would actually be tested and certified to work lest someone get their asses sued.

Needless to say, the EU has virtually no problems with their charging networks while the US remains a shitshow.

  >And we've since standardized around NACS, which is what most EVs and chargers already had

NACS is only the physical connector. The underlying protocol is CCS as I've already explained.

As for it being "what most EVs and chargers already had" is incorrect. NACS was declared adopted as standard J3400 in 2023; CCS cables outnumbered Tesla cables by nearly 3:1. The difference is all the Tesla cables were Tesla but CCS is spread out among a dozen plus brands and manufacturers. Tesla also enjoyed all the publicity and sexiness/clickbait attention which made them seem more prolific than they were.
=Smidge=

> That's a shitty analogy (not to mention, that doesn't seem to be forbidden by any regulation.)

I mean, there *are* laws regarding standardization of payment methods. The original analogy still sucks though, just not as much as your counter-proposal.

If we want to talk about reliability, then the single largest source of the woes is lack of standardization mandate. In Europe, they rather quickly passed a law saying that all public charging stations must have CCS2 plugs (they can also have other types, but CCS2 must be included). The result is every vehicle made for the EU market uses CCS2, because by law it's guaranteed that all public charging infrastructure will have at least some capacity - and as a natural result, *all* EVs sold in the UE market - including Tesla - use CCS2. (You can thank the ability to use TeslaCCS1 adapters to the EU law too, since it de-facto forced Tesla to put CCS hardware into their North America market vehicles)

In the US, no such regulation was created. We got CCS1, we got Chademo (briefly), and we got Tesla. The industry was left to figure it out themselves without a mandate to work towards, and predictably it's been a fucking nightmare with everyone rolling their own solution to a poorly enforced standard.
=Smidge=

> The ChargePoint chargers at the local Whole Foods, though? Both of them have been broken for months.

FYI; That specific Whole Foods location is responsible for the maintenance. Chargepoint's business model is only selling and installing the equipment, and offering payment processing subscriptions on the back end.
=Smidge=

A tiny fraction of biodiesel is made that way, and almost all by DIY enthusiasts. As far as I'm aware, no recycled cooking our is sold commercially as vehicle fuel. Unsurprisingly used cooking oil has a lot of contamination in it...

Regardless; as much as Americans love deep fried everything, there is not enough used cooking oil to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption. We would have to dedicate large portions of farm land and water resources to the task even if we went with the algae route.
=Smidge=

> Biodiesel is moderately easy to produce

Biodiesel also gels in the cold and is subject to growing bacteria and mold.

Not to mention we are still using arable land and dwindling water supplies for making fuel to burn rather than food to eat, so a blight or drought would be doubly devastating.

Biodiesel is a good stopgap tech that fills some important niches but it is not a solution in and of itself.
=Smidge=